A Letter to a Comrade on Our Organisational Tasks[4]

DearComrade,

Itis with pleasure that I accede to your request for a criticism of your
      draft for the “Organisation of the St. Petersburg Revolutionary
      Party.” (Most likely you meant the organisation of the work of the Russian
      Social-Democratic Labour Party in St. Petersburg.) The question you have
      raised is so important that all members of the St. Peters burg Committee,
      and even all Russian Social-Democrats in general, should take part in its
      discussion.

Firstof all, let me express my complete agreement with your explanation
      of the unsuitableness of the former (“league type,” as you term it)
      organisation of the “League.” You refer to the lack of serious
      training and revolutionary education among the progressive workers, to the
      so-called elective system, whichRabocheye Dyelosupporters are
      championing so proudly and stubbornly on the grounds of
      “democratic” principles, and to the workers’ alienation from
      active work.

Thatprecisely is the case: 1) the lack of serious training and
      revolutionary education (not only among the workers, but among the
      intellectuals as well), 2) the misplaced and immoderate application of the
      elective principle, and 3) the workers’ alienation from activerevolutionarywork— that is where the main shortcoming of
      the St. Petersburg organisation and of many other local organisations of
      our Party really lies.

Ifully share your basic view on the organisational tasks, and also
      subscribe to your organisational plan, so far as I understand its general
      outlines from your letter.

Specifically,I wholly agree with you that special stress should be laid
      on the tasks connected with the work on an all-Russian scale and with the
      work of the Party as a whole;in your draft this is expressed in Clause One, which reads: “The
      newspaperIskra, which has permanent correspondents among the
      workers and close contact with the work within the organisation, is the
      leading centre of theParty(and not only of a committee or a
      district).” I should merely like to remark that the newspaper can and
      should be theideologicalleader of the Party, evolving
      theoretical truths, tactical principles, general organisational ideas, and
      the general tasks of the whole Party at any given moment. But only a
      special central group (let us call it the Central Committee, say) can be
      the directpracticalleader of the movement, maintainingpersonalconnections with all the committees, embracing all the
      best revolutionary forces among the Russian Social-Democrats, andmanagingall the general affairs of the Party, such as the
      distribution of literature, the issuing of leaflets, the allocation of
      forces, the appointment of individuals and groups to take charge of
      special undertakings, the preparation of demonstrations and an uprising on
      an all-Russian scale, etc. Since the strictest secrecy of organisation and
      preservation of continuity of the movement is essential, our Party can and
      should havetwoleading centres: a C.O. (Central Organ) and a
      C. C. (Central Committee). The former should be responsible for
      ideological leader ship, and the latter—for direct and practical
      leadership. Unity of action and the necessary solidarity between these
      groups should be ensured, not only by a single Party programme, but also
      by thecomposition of the two groups(both groups, the C.O. and
      the C.C., should be made up of people who are in complete harmony with one
      another), and by the institution of regular and systematic joint
      conferences. Only then will the C.O., on the one hand, be placed beyond
      the reach of the Russian gendarmes and assured of consistency and
      continuity, while, on the other hand, the C.C. will always be at one with
      the C.O. on all essential matters and have sufficient freedom totakedirectchargeof all the practical aspects of the
      movement.

Forthis reason it would be desirable that Clause One of the Rules
      (according to your draft) should not only indicate which Party organ is
      recognised as the leading organ (that, of course, is necessary), but
      should also state that the given local organisation sets itself the task
      of working activelyfor thecreation, support, and consolidation of those central
      institutions without which our Party cannot exist as a party.

Further,in Clause Two, you say that the committee should “direct
      the local organisation” (perhaps it would be better to say:
      “all local work and all the local organisations of the Party”;
      but I shall not dwell on details of formulation), and that it should
      consist of both workers and intellectuals, for to divide them into two
      committees is harmful. This is absolutely and indubitably correct. There
      should be only one committee of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour
      Party, and it should consist of fully convinced Social-Democrats who
      devote themselves entirely to Social-Democratic activities. We should
      particularly see to it that as many workers as possible become fully
      class-conscious and professional revolutionaries and members of the

      committee.[1]Once there is asingleand not a dual committee, the matter of
      the committee memberspersonallyknowing many workers is of
      particular importance. In order to take the lead in whatever goes on in
      the workers’ midst, it is necessary to be able to have access to all
      quarters, to know very many workers, to have all sorts of channels, etc.,
      etc. The committee should, therefore, include, as far as possible, all the
      principalleadersof the working-class movement from among the
      workers themselves; it should directallaspects of the local
      movement and take charge ofalllocal institutions, forces and
      means of the Party. You do not say how the committee should be set
      up—most likely, here too we shall agree with you that it is scarcely
      necessary to have special regulations about this; how to set up the
      committee is a matter for the Social-Democrats on the spot to
      decide. However, it should perhaps be pointed out that new members should
      be added to the committee by decision of a majority (or two-thirds, etc.)
      of its members, and that the committee should see to it that its list of
      contacts is placed in hands that are reliable (from the revolutionary
      standpoint) and safe (in the political sense), and that it prepares
      candidate-membersin advance. When we have the C.O. and the new committees
      should be set up only with their co-operation and their consent. As far as
      possible, the committees should not have very many members (so that they
      consist of well-educated people, each well versed in the technique of his
      particular branch of revolutionary activity), but at the same time they
      should include a sufficient number to take charge ofallaspects
      of the work, and to ensure full representation and binding
      decisions. Should it hap pen that the number of members is fairly large
      and that it is hazardous for them to meet frequently, it might then be
      necessary to select from the committee a special and very smallexecutivegroup (consisting of, say, five, or even fewer
      persons), which should without fail include the secretary and those most
      capable of giving practical guidance to the work as a whole. It isparticularly importantthat candidate-members be provided for
      this group so that the work should not have to stop in case of
      arrests. The activities of the executive group, its membership, etc.,
      should be subject to approval by a general meeting of the committee.

Further,alterthe committee, you propose the following institutions under it: 1)
      discussion meetings (conferences of the “best”
      revolutionaries), 2) district circles with 3) a propagandists’ circle
      attached to each of these, 4) factory circles, and 5) “meetings of
      representatives” of delegates from the factory circles of a given
      district. I fully agree with you thatallfurther institutions
      (and of these there should be very many and extremely diversified ones,
      besides those mentioned by you) should be subordinated to the committee,
      and that it is necessary ·to have district groups (for the very big
      cities) and factory groups (always and everywhere). But I do not quite
      agree with you, it seems, on several details. For instance, with regard to
      “discussion meetings” I think that these arewholly
      unnecessary.The “best revolutionaries” should all be on
      the committee, or engaged in special work (printing, transport,
      agitational tours, the organisation, say, of a passport bureau, or of
      combat squads to deal with spies andagents provocateurs, or of
      groups in the army, etc.).

“Conferences”will be held in the committee and ineachdistrict, in each factory, propagandist, trade (weavers, mechanics,tanners. etc.), student, literary, etc., circle. Why should conferences be
      made a special institution?

Further.You quite justifiably demand that the opportunity to write toIskradirectly should be given to “every one who wants it."
      Only “directly” should not be understood to mean that
      “everyone who wants it” should be given access to the
      editorial office or its address, but that it should be obligatory to hand
      over (or forward) to the editors letters fromall who so desire.The addresses should, of course, be made known to afairly wide
      circle;however, they should not be given to everyone who wants them,
      but only to revolutionaries who are reliable and known for their ability
      to observe the conditions of secrecy—perhaps even not to one person
      in each district, as you suggest, but to several. It is also necessary
      that all who take part in our work, each and every circle,should have
      the rightto bring their decisions, desires and requests to the
      attention of thecommittee, as well asof the C.O. and C.C. If we
      ensure this, thenall conferences of Party functionarieswill
      have the benefit offull in formation, without instituting
      anything so cumbersome and contrary to the rules of secrecy as
      “discussion meetings." Of course, we should also endeavour to
      arrangepersonal conferencesof the greatest possible number of
      all and sundry functionaries—but then here everything hinges on the
      observance of secrecy. General meetings and gatherings are possible in
      Russia only rarely and by way of exception, and it is necessary to be
      doubly wary about allowing the “best revolutionaries” to
      attend these meetings, since it is easier in general foragents
      provocateursto get into them and for spies to trail some participant
      of the meeting. I think that perhaps it would be better to do as follows:
      when it is possible to organise a big (say, 30 to 100 people) general
      meeting (for instance, in the summer-time in the woods, or in a secret
      apartment that has been specially secured for this purpose), the committee

      shou]dsend one or two of the “best revolutionaries” andmake
	surethat the meeting is attended by the proper people, i.e., for
	example, that invitations should be extended to as many as possible of
	the reliable members of the factory circles, etc. But these meetings
	should not officially go on record; they should not be put in the Rules,
	or held regularly; matters should not be arranged insuch a way that everyone who attends the meeting knows everyone else
      there, i.e., knows that everyone is a “representative” of a
      circle, etc.; that is why I am opposed, not only to “discussion
      meetings” but also to “meetings of representatives.” In place
      of these two institutions I would propose a rule to the following
      effect. The committee must see to the organisation of big meetings of as
      many people as possible who are practical participants in the movement,
      and of the workers in general. The time, place, and occasion for the
      meeting and its composition are to be determined by the committee, which
      is responsible for the secret arrangement of such affairs. It is
      self-evident that the organisation of workers’ gatherings of a less formal
      character at outings, in the woods, etc., is in no way restricted by
      this. Perhaps it would be even better not to say anything about this in
      the Rules.

Further,as regards the district groups, I fully agree with you that it is
      one of their most important tasks to organise thedistributionof
      literature properly. I think the district groups should for the main part
      act asintermediariesbetween the committees and the factories,
      intermediaries and even mostlycouriers.Their chief task should
      be the proper distribution of the literature received from the committee
      in accordance with the rules of secrecy. This is an extremely important
      task, for if we secure regular contact between a special district group of
      distributorsand all the factoriesin that district, as well as
      the largest possible number ofworkers’ homesin that district,
      it will be of enormous value, both for demonstrations and for an
      uprising. Arranging for and organising the speedy and proper delivery of
      literature, leaflets, proclamations, etc., training a network of agents
      for this purpose, means performing thegreaterpart of the work
      of preparing for future demonstrations or an uprising. It is too late to
      start organising the distribution of literature at a time of unrest, a
      strike, or turmoil; this work can be built up only gradually, by making
      distributionsobligatorytwice or three times a month. If no
      newspapers are available, leaflets may and should be distributed, but the
      distributive machine must in no case be allowed to remain idle. This
      machine should be brought to such a degree of perfection as to make it
      possible to inform and mobilise, so to speak,the whole working-class population of St. Petersburg over night. Nor is
      this by any means a Utopian aim, provided there is a systematic
      transmission of leaflets from the centre to the narrower intermediary
      circles and from them to the distributors. In my opinion, the functions of
      the district groups should not be extended beyond the bounds of purely
      intermediary and transmission work, or, to put it more accurately, they
      should be extended only with the utmost caution—otherwise this can
      only increase the risk of discovery and be injurious to the integrity of
      the work. Of course, conferences to discuss all Party questions will take
      place in the district circles as well, butdecisionson all
      general questions of the local movement should be made only by the
      committee. The district groups should be permitted to act independently
      only on questions concerning the technical aspect of transmission and
      distribution. The composition of the district groups should be determined
      by the committee, i.e., the committeeappointsone or two of its
      members (or even comrades who are not on the committee) as delegates to
      this or that district and instructs them toestablish a district
      group, all the members of which are likewise installed in office, so
      to speak, by the committee. The district group is a branch of the
      committee, deriving its powers only from the latter.

Inow pass on to the question of propagandists’ circles. It is hardly
      possible to organise such circles separately in every district owing to
      the scarcity of our propagandist forces, and it is hardly
      desirable. Propaganda must be carried on in one and the same spirit by the
      whole committee, and it should be strictly centralised. My idea of the
      matter is therefore as follows: the committee instructs several of its
      members to organise a group of propagandists (which will be a branch of
      the committee orone of the institutions of the committee). This
      group, using for the sake of secrecy theservicesof the district
      groups, should conduct propagandathroughout the town, and in all
      localities “within the jurisdiction” of the committee. If
      necessary, this group may set up subgroups, and, so to say, entrust
      certain of its functions to the latter, but all this can be done only with
      the sanction of the committee, which must always and unconditionally
      possess the right of detailing its delegate to anygroup, subgroup, or circle which has any connection at all with the
      movement.

Thesame pattern of organisation, the same type of branches of the
      committee or its institutions, should be adopted for all the various
      groups serving the movement—students’ groups in the higher and
      secondary schools; groups, let us say, of supporters among government
      officials; transport, printing, and passport groups; groups for arranging
      secret meeting places; groups whose job it is to track down spies; groups
      among the military; groups for supplying arms; groups for the organisation
      of “financially profitable enterprises,” for example, etc. The whole
      art of running a secret organisation should consist in making use ofeverything possible, in “giving everyone something to do,”
      at the same time retainingleadershipof the whole movement, not
      by virtue of having the power, of course, but by virtue of authority,
      energy, greater experience, greater versatility, and greater talent. This
      remark is made to meet the possible and usual objection that strict
      centralisation may all too easily ruin the movement if the centrehappensto include anincapableperson invested with
      tremendous power. This is, of course, possible, but it cannot be obviated
      by the elective principle and decentralisation, the application of which
      is absolutely impermissible to any wide degree and even altogether
      detrimental to revolutionary work carried on under an autocracy. Nor can
      any rules provide means against this; such means can be provided only by
      measures of “comradely influence,” beginning with the resolutions of
      each and every subgroup, followed up by their appeals to the C.O. and the
      C.C., and ending (if the worst comes to the worst) with theremovalof the persons in authority who are absolutely
      incapable. The committee should endeavour to achieve the greatest possible
      division of labour, bearing in mind that the various aspects of
      revolutionary work require various abilities, and that sometimes a person
      who is absolutely useless as an organiser may be invaluable as an
      agitator, or that a person who is not good at strictly secret work may be
      an excellent propagandist, etc.

Incidentally,while on the subject of propagandists, I should like to say
      a few words in criticism of the usual practice ofoverloadingthis profession with incapable peopleand thus lowering the level of propaganda. It is sometimes the habit among
      us to regard every student as a propagandist without discrimination, and
      everyyoungsterdemands that he should “be given a circle,”
      etc. This must be countered, because it does a great deal of harm. There
      arevery fewpropagandists whose principles are invariably
      consistent and who are really capable (and to become such one must put in
      a lot of study and amass experience); such people should therefore be
      specialised, put wholly on this kind of work, and be given the utmost
      care. Such persons should deliver several lectures a week and be sent to
      other towns when necessary, and, in general, capable propagandists should
      make tours of various towns and cities. But the mass of young beginners
      should be given mainly practical assignments, which are somewhat neglected
      in comparison with the students’ conduct of circles, which is
      optimistically called “propaganda.” Of course, thorough training is
      also required for serious practical enterprises; nevertheless, work in
      this sphere can more easily be found for “beginners” too.

Nowabout the factory circles. These are particularly important to us: the
      main strength of the movement lies in the organisation of the workers at
      thelargefactories, for the large factories (and mills) contain
      not only the predominant part of the working class, as regards numbers,
      but even more as regards influence, development, and fighting
      capacity. Every factory must be our fortress. For that every
      “factory” workers’ organisation should be as secret internally
      as “ramified” externally, i.e., in its outward relationships,
      it should stretch its feelers as far and in as many directions as any
      revolutionary organisation. I emphasise that here, too, a group of
      revolutionary workers should necessarily be the core, the leader, the
      “master.” We must break completely with the traditional type of
      purely labour or purely trade-union Social-Democratic organisation,includingthe “factory” circles. The factory group,
      or the factory (mill) committee (to distinguish it from other groups of
      which there should be a great number) should consist of a very small
      number ofrevolutionaries, who take their instructions and
      receive their authority to carry on all Social-Democratic work in the
      factorydirectly from the committee.Every member of the factory
      committee should regard himself as anagent of the committee, obliged to submit to all its orders and to observe
      all the “laws and customs” of the “army in the
      field” which he has joined and from which in time of war he has no
      right to absent himself without official leave. The composition of the
      factory commitee is therefore a matter of very great importance, and one
      of the chief duties of the committee should be to see to the proper
      organisation of these subcommittees. This is how I picture it: the
      committee instructs certain of its members (plus, let us say, certain
      workers who for some reason or other have not been included in the
      committee, but who can be very useful by reason of their experience,
      knowledge of people, intelligence, and connections) to organise factory
      subcommittees everywhere. This group consults with the district
      representatives, arranges for a number of meetings, thoroughly checks
      candidate-members of the factory subcommittees, subjects them to close
      cross-examination, where necessary puts them to the test, endeavouring
      personally to examine and verify thelargest possiblenumber of
      candidate-members of the sub committee of the factory in question, and,
      finally, submits a list of members for each factory circle to the
      committee for approval, or proposes that authority be given to some
      designated worker to set up, nominate or select a complete
      subcommittee. In this way, the committee will also deter mine which of
      these agents is to maintain contact with itand howthe contact
      is to be maintained (as a general rule, through the district
      representatives, but this rule may be supplemented and modified). In view
      of the importance of these factory subcommittees, we must see to it as far
      as possible thateverysubcommittee is in possession of an
      address to which it can direct its communication to the C.O. and of arepositoryfor its list of contacts in some safe place (i.e.,
      that the information required for the immediate re establishment of the
      subcommittee in the event of arrests is transmitted as regularly and as
      fully as possible to the Party centre, for safekeeping in a place where
      the Russian gendarmes are unable to get at it). It is a matter of course
      that the transmission of addresses must be determined by the committee at
      its own discretion and on the basis of the facts at its disposal, and not
      on the basis of some non existent right to a “democratic”
      allocation of these addresses.Finally, it is perhaps not superfluous to mention that it may sometimes be
      necessary, ormore convenient, to confine ourselves to the
      appointment of one agent from the

      commit tee(and an alternate for him) instead of a factory subcommittee consisting of
      several members. As soon as the factory subcommittee has been formed it
      should proceed to organise a number of factory groups and circles with
      diverse tasks and varying degrees of secrecy and organisational form, as,
      for instance, circles for delivering and distributing literature (this is
      one of the most important functions, which must be organised so as to
      provide us with a real postal service of our own, so as to possess tried
      and tested methods, not only for distributing literature, but also for
      delivering it to the homes, and so as to provide a definite knowledge of
      all the workers’ addresses and ways of reaching them); circles for reading
      illegal literature; groups for tracking down

      spies[2];

      circles for giving special guidance to the trade-union movement and the
      economic struggle; circles of agitators and propagandists who know how to
      initiate and to carry on long talks in anabsolutely legalway
      (on machinery, inspectors, etc.) and so be able to speak safely and
      publicly, to get to know people and see how the land lies,

      etc.[3]The factory subcommittee should endeavour to embrace the whole factory,
      the largest possible number of the workers, with a network of all kinds of
      circles (or agents). The success of the subcommittee’s activities should
      be measured by the abundance of such circles, by their accessibility to
      touring propagandists and, above all, by the correctness of the regular
      work done in thedistribution of literatureand the collection of
      information and correspondence.

Tosum up, the general type of organisation, in my opinion, should be as
      follows: a committee should be at the head of the entire local movement,
      of all the local Social-Democratic activities. From it should stem the
      institutions and branches subordinate to it, such as, first,the
      network of executive agentsembracing (as far as possible) the whole
      working-class mass and organised in the form ofdistrictgroups
      and factory (mill) subcommittees. In times of peace this network will be
      engaged in distributing literature, leaflets, proclamations and the secret
      communications from the committee; in times of war it will organise
      demonstrations and similar collective activities. Secondly, the committee
      will also branch out into circles and groups of all kinds serving the
      whole movement (propaganda, transport, all kinds of underground
      activities, etc.). All groups, circles, subcommittees, etc., should enjoy
      the status of committee institutions or branches of a committee. Some of
      them will openly declare their wish to join the Russian Social-Democratic
      Labour Party and, if endorsed by the committee, will join the Party, and
      will assume definite functions (on the instructions of, or in agreement
      with, the committee), will undertake to obey the orders of the Party
      organs, receive the same rights as all Party members, and be regarded as
      immediate candidates for membership of the committee, etc. Others will not
      join the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, and will have the status
      of circles formed by Party members, or associated with one Party group or
      another, etc.

Inallinternalmatters, members ofallthese circles
      are of course on an equal footing, as are all members of a committee. The
      only exception will be that the right ofpersonalcontact with
      the local committee (as well as with the G.C. and the C.O.) will be
      reserved solely to the person (or persons) appointed for that purpose by
      the committee. In all other respects, this person will be on an equal
      footing with the rest, who will also have the right to present statements
      (but not in person) to the local committee and to the C.C. and C.O. It
      follows that the exception indicated will not at all be an infraction of
      the principle of equality, but merely a necessary concession to the
      absolute demands of secrecy. A member of a committee who fails to transmita communication of his “own” group to the committee, the
      C.C. or the C.O., will be guilty of a direct breach of Party
      duty. Further, the degree of secrecy and the organisational form of the
      various circles will depend upon the nature of the functions: accordingly,
      the organisations will be most varied (ranging from the “strictest,”
      narrowest, and most restricted type of organisation to the “freest,”
      broadest, most loosely constituted, and open type). For instance,
      strictest secrecy and military discipline must be maintained in the
      distributing groups. The propagandists’ groups must also maintain secrecy,
      but be under far less military discipline. Workers’ groups for reading
      legal literature, or for organising discussions on trade-union needs and
      demands call for still less secrecy, and so on. The distributing groups
      should belong to the R.S.D.L.P. and know a certain number of its members
      and functionaries. The groups for studying labour conditions and drawing
      up trade-union demands need not necessarily belong to the
      R.S.D.L.P. Groups of students, officers, or office employees engaged in
      self-educationin conjunction withone or two Party members
      should in some cases not even be aware that these belong to the Party,
      etc. But in one respect we mustabsolutelydemand themaximum
      degree of organisationin all these branch groups, namely, that every
      Party member belonging to such a group is formally responsible for the
      conduct of work in the group and is obliged to takeeverymeasure
      in order that the composition of each of these groups, the wholemechanismof its work, and the content of that work should beknown as fullyaspossibleto the C.C. and the C.O. That
      is necessary in order that the centre may have acompletepicture
      of the whole movement, that the selection for various Party posts may be
      made from the widest possible circle of people; that all groups of a
      similar nature throughout Russia may learn from one another (through the
      medium of the centre), and that warning may be given in the event of the
      appearance ofagents provocateursor suspicious characters—
      in a word, that is absolutely and vitally necessary in all cases.

Howis it to be done? By submitting regular reports to the committee, by
      transmitting to the C.O. as much of the contents as possible of as large a
      number of reports as possible, by arranging that members of the C.C. and
      the localcommittee visit the various circles, and, finally, by making itobligatoryto hand over the list of contacts with these circles,
      i.e., the names and addresses of several members of each circle, for
      safekeeping (and to the Party bureau of the C.O and the C.C.). Only when
      reports are submitted and contacts transmitted will it be possible to say
      of a Party member belonging to a given circle that he has done his duty;
      only then will the Party as a whole be in a positionto learnfrom every circle that is carrying on practical work; only then will
      arrests and dragnets lose their terror for us, for if contacts are
      maintained with the various circles it will always be easy for a delegate
      of our G.G. to find substitutesimmediatelyand have the work
      resumed. The arrest of a committee will then not destroy the whole
      machine, but only remove the leaders, who will always have candidates
      ready. And let it not be said that the transmission of reports and
      contacts is impossible because of the need to maintain secrecy: once there
      is the desire to do so, it is always, andwill always, be
      possible to hand over (or forward) reports and contacts, so long as we
      have committees, a C.C. or a C.O.

Thisbrings us to a highly important principle of all Party organisation
      and all Party activity: whilethe greatest possible
      centralisationis necessary with regard to the ideological and
      practicalleadershipof the movement and the revolutionary
      struggle of the proletariat,the greatest possible
      decentralisationis necessary with regard to keeping the Party centre
      (and therefore the Party as a whole)informedabout the movement,
      and with regard toresponsibilityto the Party. The leadership of
      the movement should be entrusted to the smallest possible number of the
      most homogeneous possible groups of professional revolutionaries with
      great practical experience. Participation in the movement should extend to
      the greatest possible number of the most diverse and heterogeneous groups
      of the most varied sections of the proletariat (and other classes of the
      people). The Party centre should always have before it, not only exact
      information regarding the activities of each of these groups, but also thefullest possible information regarding their composition. We must
      centralise the leadership of the movement. We must also (andfor that
      very reason, since without information centralisation is impossible)
      as far as possibledecentralise responsibility to the Partyon the part of its
      individual members, of every participant in its work, and of every circle
      belonging to or associated with the Party. This decentralisation is an
      essential prerequisite of revolutionary centralisation and anessential corrective to it. Only when centralisation has been
      carried through to the end and when we have a C.O. and a C.C., will it be
      possible for every group, however small, to communicate with
      them—and not only communicate with them, but to do soregularlyas a result of a system established by years of
      experience—only then will the possibility of grievous consequences
      resulting from an accidentally unfortunate composition of a local
      committee be eliminated. Now that we are coming close to actual unity in
      the Party and to the creation of a real leading centre, we must well
      remember thatthis centre will be powerlessif we do not at the
      same time introduce themaximum of decentralisationboth with
      regard to responsibility to the centre and with regard to keeping it
      informed of all the cogs and wheels of the Party machine. This
      decentralisation is nothing but the reverse side of thedivision of
      labourwhich is generally recognised to be one of the most urgent
      practical needs of our movement. No official recognition of a given
      organisation as the leading body, no setting-up of a formal C.G. will make
      our movement really united, or create an enduring militant Party, if the
      Party centre continues to becut offfrom direct practical work
      by the local committees of the old type, i.e., by committees such as are,
      on the one hand, made up of a regular jumble of persons, each of whom
      carries on all and every kind of work, without devoting himself to some
      definite type of revolutionary work, without assuming responsibility for
      some special duty, without carrying through a piece of work to the end,
      once it has been undertaken, thoroughly considered and prepared, wasting
      an enormous amount of time and energy in radicalist noise-making, while,
      on the other hand, there is a great mass of students’ and workers’
      circles, half of which are altogether unknown to the committee, while the
      other half are just as cumbersome, just as lacking in specialisation, just
      as little given to acquiring the experience of professional
      revolutionaries or to benefiting from the experience of others, just as
      takenup with endless conferences “about everything,” with elections and
      with drafting rules, as the committee itself. For the centre to be able to
      work properly, the local committeesmust reorganise themselves;they must become specialised and more “business-like”
      organisations, achieving real “perfection” in one or another
      practical sphere. For the centre not only to advise, persuade, and argue
      (as has been the case hitherto), but really conduct the orchestra, it is
      necessary to know exactly who is playing which fiddle, and where and how;
      where and how instruction has been or is being received in playing each
      instrument; who is playing out of tune (when the music begins to jar on
      the ear), and where and why; and who should be transferred, and how and
      where to, so that the discord may be remedied, etc. At the present
      time—this must be said openly—we either know nothing about thereal internalwork of a committee, except from its proclamations
      and general correspondence, or we know about it from friends or good
      acquaintances. But it is ridiculous to think that a huge Party, which is
      capable of leading the Russian working-class movement and which is
      preparing a general onslaught upon the autocracy, can limit itself to
      this. The number of committee members should be cut down; each of them,
      wherever possible, should be entrusted with a definite, special and,
      important function, for which he will be held to account; a special, very
      small, directing centre must be set up; a network of executive agents must
      be developed, linking the committee with every large factory, carrying on
      the regular distribution of literature and giving the centre an exact
      picture of this distribution and of the entire mechanism of the work;
      lastly, numerous groups and circles must be formed, which will undertake
      various functions or unite persons who are close to the Social-Democrats,
      who help them and are preparing to become Social-Democrats, so that the
      committee and the centre may be constantly informed of the activities (and
      the composition) of these circles—these are the lines along which
      the St. Petersburg, and all the other committees of the Party, should be
      reorganised; and this is why the question of Rules is of so little
      importance.

Ihave begun with an analysis of the draft Rules in order to bring out the
      drift of my proposals more clearly. And asa result it will, I hope, have become clear to the reader that in fact it
      would perhaps be possible to get alongwithout Rules,
      substituting for them regular reports about each circle and every aspect
      of the work. What can one put in the Rules? The committee guides the work
      of everyone (this is clear as it is). The committee elects an executive
      group (this is not always necessary, and when it is necessary it is not a
      matter of Rules but ofinformingthe centre of the composition of
      this group and of the candidate-members to it). The committee distributes
      the various fields of work among its members, charging every member to
      make regular reports to the committee and to keep the G.O. and
      C.C. informed about the progress of the work (here, too, it is more
      important to inform the centre of whatever assignments have been made than
      to include in the Rules a regulation whichmore frequently than
      notwill go by the board because of scarcity of our forces). The
      committee must specify exactly who its members are. New members are added
      to the committee by co-optation. The committee appoints the district
      groups, factory subcommittees and certain groups (if you wish to enumerate
      them you will never be done, and there is no point approximately in
      enumerating them in the Rules; it is sufficient to inform the centre about
      their organisation). The district groups and subcommittees organise the
      following circles.... It would be all the less useful to draw up such
      Rules at present since we have practically no general Party experience
      (and in many places none whatever) with regard to the activities of the
      various groups and subgroups of this sort, and in order to acquire such
      experience what is needed is not Rules but the organisation of Party
      information, if I may put it in this way. Each of our local organisations
      now spends at least a few evenings on discussing Rules. If instead, each
      member would devote this time to making a detailed and well-prepared
      reportto the entire Partyon his particular function, the work
      would gain a hundredfold.

Andit is not merely because revolutionary work does not always lend
      itself to definite organisational form that Rules are useless. No,
      definite organisational form is necessary, and we must endeavour togive such formto all our work as far as possible. That is
      permissible to a much greaterextent than is generally thought, and achievable not through Rules but
      solely and exclusively (we must keep on reiterating this) through
      transmitting exact information to the Party centre; it is only then that
      we shall have real organisational form connected with real responsibility
      and (inner-Party) publicity. For who of us does not know thatseriousconflicts and differences of opinion among us are
      actually decided not by vote “in accordance with the Rules,” but by
      struggle and threats to “resign”? During the last three or four
      years of Party life the history ofmostof our committees has
      been replete with such internal strife. It is a great pity that this
      strife has not assumed definite form: it would then have been much more
      instructive for the Party and would have contributed much more to the
      experience of our successors. But no Rules can createsuchuseful
      and essential definiteness of organisational form; this can be done solely
      throughinner-Party publicity. Under the autocracy we can have no
      other means or weapon of inner-Party publicity than keeping the Party
      centre regularly informed of Party events.

Andonly after we have learned to apply this inner-Party publicity on a
      wide scale shall we actually be able to amass experience in the
      functioning of the various organisations; only on the basis of such
      extensive experience over a period of many years shall we be able to draw
      up Rules that willnot be mere paper Rules.

[1]We must try to get on the committee revolutionary workers who have the
      greatest contacts and the best “reputation” among the mass of
      the workers.
    —Lenin

[2]We must get the workers to understand that while the killing of spies,agents provocateurs, and traitors may sometimes, of course, be
      absolutely unavoidable, it is highly undesirable and mistaken to make a
      system of it, and that we must strive to create an organisation which will
      be able to render spiesinnocuousby exposing them and tracking
      them down. It is impossible to do away with all spies, but to create an
      organisation which will ferret them out andeducatethe
      working-class masses isboth possible and necessary.
    —Lenin

[3]We also need combat groups, in which Workers who have had military
      training or who are particularly strong and agile should be enrolled, to
      act in the event of demonstrations, in arranging escapes. from prison,
      etc.
    —Lenin

[4]A Letter to a Comrade on Our Organisational Taskswas a reply to
      a letter from the St. Petersburg Social-Democrat A. A. Shneyerson
      (Yeryoma) criticising the way Social-Democratic work was organised in that
      city.

Afterthe arrest of V. I. Lenin and his close associates in December 1895,
      the “economists” gradually gained control of the League of
      Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class. Unlike the
      revolutionary Marxists, who fought for the creation of an under ground and
      centralised organisation of revolutionaries, the “economists”
      derogated the significance of political struggle and came out for creation
      of a broad working-class organisation based on the elective principle and
      pursuing the primary aim of immediate defence of the workers’ economic
      interests, formation of mutual aid banks, and the like. The
      “economists’\thinspace" long control of the League of Struggleleft an imprint on its organisational structure too: its working-class
      membership (the so-called Workers’ Organisation) was artificially
      separated from the intellectual members. The League’s clumsy organisation
      was more adapted for a trade-union form of struggle than for leadership of
      the workers’ mass revolutionary struggle against the autocracy and the
      bourgeoisie. The struggle between theIskra-ists and the
      “economists” which developed in the St. Petersburg organisation
      culminated in the St. Petersburg Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. going over to
      theIskrastand in the summer of 1902.

“Twoquestions were raised,” it was reported inIskra’sNo. 30 of December 15, 1902, “at a meeting held in the outskirts of
      St. Petersburg inJune, which was attended byworkers
      representing all five wards of the Workers’ Organisation(who
      comprised the highest body of the then Workers’ Organisation). These
      questions were: 1) the two trends in Russian Social-Democracy: the old
      ’economist’ trend, which hitherto obtained in St. Petersburg, and the
      revolutionary, as represented byIskraandZarya, and 2)
      principles of organisation (so-called ’democratism’ or an ’organisation of
      revolutionaries’). On both issuesall the workerscame outunanimously against’economism’ and ’democratism’ and in favour
      of theIskra trend.”

Toreconstruct the St. Petersburg League of Struggle in the spirit ofIskraorganisational principles, a committee was set up composed
      of representatives of theIskraorganisation, the Workers’
      Organisation, and the St. Petersburg Committee. However, the
      “economists,” headed by Tokarev, stated that they disagreed with the
      St. Petersburg Committee’s decision on support for theIskrastand, formed the so-called Workers’ Organisation’s Committee, and
      launched a struggle against theIskra-ists. The latter, with the
      support of the workers, were able to retain their positions and fortify
      their standing in the St. Petersburg organisation.

ALetter to a Comrade, in which Lenin developed and gave concrete
      shape to his plan for the Party’s organisation, was received in
      St. Petersburg at the height of the struggle against the
      “economists.” It was hectographed, copied by hand, and distributed
      among St. Petersburg Social-Democrats. In June 1903 it was illegally
      published by the Siberian Social-Democratic League under the title ofOn Revolutionary Work in the Organisations of the R.S.D.L.P. (A Letter
      to a Comrade).ThisLetterwas published by the R.S.D.L.P.’s
      Central Committee as a separate pamphlet, with a preface and postscript by
      Lenin, who also prepared the pamphlet for the press. TheLetterwas widely distributed in Social-Democratic organisations, police archives
      for 1902-05 revealing that it was found during police raids in Moscow,
      Riga, Rostov-on-Don, Nakhichevan, Nikolayev, Krasnoyarsk, Irkutsk, and
      elsewhere.

TheArchives of the Institute of Marxism-Leninism of the C.P.S.U.’s
      Central Committee contain only the first manuscript page of theLetter, with the following inscription in Lenin’s hand: “To
      the St. Petersburg Committee in general and to Comrade Yeryoma in
      particular (from Lenin).”